Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Bob the Super Hamste writes "The St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting that Andrew Henderson was recording Ramsey County sheriff's deputies frisking a bloody-faced man, who was then loaded into an ambulance by paramedics. Then sheriff's deputy Jacqueline Muellner approached Henderson and confiscated his video camera, stating, 'We'll just take this for evidence,' which was recorded on Henderson's cell phone. On October 30th, Henderson went to the Arden Hills sheriff's office to retrieve his video camera, where he was told where he would have to wait to receive his camera back. A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, with the citation stating, 'While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson.' In mid November, Henderson went back to the sheriff's office to attempt to retrieve his camera and get a copy of the report when Deputy Dan Eggers refused. ... Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School, states that the alleged violation of HIPAA rules by Andrew Henderson is nonsense, stating, 'There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets, HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that.'"
The article notes that the Deputy in question basically told the guy he was arrested for being a "buttinski" and recording someone in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown. Supposedly the footage was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

They're already making up bullshit to get away with it... what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it? They may have well charged the guy with poaching polar bears... it would have made as much sense as claiming a HIPAA violation to get him to stop video taping.

They're already making up bullshit to get away with it... what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it? They may have well charged the guy with poaching polar bears... it would have made as much sense as claiming a HIPAA violation to get him to stop video taping.

This here poaching a pola bears has to stop. Yo in a heap a troulble heah.

The police have been terrified ever since Rodney King was filmed getting his beating.

Let's not forget, today's police are not Andy Griffith. Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human. That doesn't mean they have a right to privacy in their work. It doesn't mean they can violate their use of force policies because no one is watching. People are watching. That just means they need to follow the rules too. Understood they're not happy about it.

Which is all the more reason to allow citizen recording. When some flaming asshole decides he's going to accuse the police of excessive force, brutality, what have you, third-party record of the incident will be the police officer's best friend.

The problem is it is almost never their best friend. I was told by a criminal attorney in my state that the state decided to discontinue video recording police encounters because 99.9% of the time it was losing cases for them. The video evidence was almost never in their favor. So they stopped. The number of violent, dangerous, angry, sadistic cops on the force is nothing but an embarrassment for the state. Police brutality and perjury is not just routine it is expected by almost everyone.

Those that become cops for other reasons often become psychopaths (Is that possible? Perhaps they simply demonstrate psychopathic behavior) as demonstrated in the much referenced Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org].

The police already have dash cam videos and the sanctity of police testimony on their side. They don't need the protection of members of the public recording them and recordings made by members of the public that are inconvenient cannot be made to disappear.

Does NO ONE out there have their phone to automatically 'lock', and have their password be longer than 4x numbers?

A cop gets my phone...will take them more than casual effort to get into it, no?

Hell, last time I got pulled over, and was asked to get out of the car, I dropped the phone down beside the seat, and when I stepped out of the car, I locked it behind me, and no...if they had asked, I would not have given consent for search.

Well, I have no opinion about the latter half of his post -- but from a technology side, his belief of it being more than casual effort to get into his phone might let him down.

Simply locking it doesn't safeguard you. Refusing a search? Well, they might just find other things to charge you for. We're already talking about the bad behavior which can come from cops who don't get their own way and try to find new ways to punish you for it.

Which explains why I'm not allowed to film loggers, pilots, miners, roofers, fishermen, pizza drivers, or any of several other professions that carry an even higher risk [riskmanage...onitor.com] of on-the-job fatalities.

No, police officers are just better at whining about how dangerous their job is.

Perhaps if they WERE more like Andy Griffith their job would be less dangerous.

Their job is dangerous because they have lost public support in many communities. They lost that support because people don't support jack booted thugs. It's why parents tell their kids that if they get lost, avoid the police and find a woman with kids to help them.

The police have been terrified ever since Rodney King was filmed getting his beating.

Let's not forget, today's police are not Andy Griffith. Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human. That doesn't mean they have a right to privacy in their work. It doesn't mean they can violate their use of force policies because no one is watching. People are watching. That just means they need to follow the rules too. Understood they're not happy about it.

To quote the police, "if the police are doing nothing illegal, they have nothing to fear from being recorded"

It's common knowledge that police go trolling through law books looking for anything that sounds remotely charge-able against people they don't like.

FTA: Deputy Dan Eggers in a recording, speaking to the victim: "They felt like you were being a 'buttinski' by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in."

That, combined with destruction of the evidence, does not remotely sound like honest belief in a HIPAA violation by an expert person knowledgeable in medical-industry practices.

That, combined with destruction of the evidence, does not remotely sound like honest belief in a HIPAA violation by an expert person knowledgeable in medical-industry practices.

Correct. An expert knows not to leave witnesses, or evidence, but if there simply must be one or the other, to ship it overseas, write a bunch of CYA policy documentation, and then blame "the other guy" when caught.

It's common knowledge that police go trolling through law books looking for anything that sounds remotely charge-able against people they don't like.

FTA: Deputy Dan Eggers in a recording, speaking to the victim: "They felt like you were being a 'buttinski' by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in."

That, combined with destruction of the evidence, does not remotely sound like honest belief in a HIPAA violation by an expert person knowledgeable in medical-industry practices.

The guy violated the anti-'buttinski' laws. The cops now want him to experience "buttupski" punishment.

Based on my experience with HIPAA, it's very likely the officer thought he was correct.

Based on my experience with police, it's more likely that the officer knew he was incorrect. They'll make up rules and laws that don't exist if you are doing something they don't like because there are no repercussions when they lie to you.

Be interesting if people started making citizen's arrests for same, but I'm not holding my breath.

Perhaps for certain definitions of "interesting"....I don't think a citizen's arrest [wikipedia.org] for a civil rights violation [lawyers.com] would hold up. Especially since the arresting "citizen" would likely need to commit a felony [wikipedia.org] in the process.

Doesn't matter. I've seen recordings of girls beaten in custody and nothing happened (sometimes a firing, but never an arrest). One was a policeman defending himself when he ordered a girl to take off her shoes and place them outside the holding cell. She kicked one off without incident, but when kicking off the second, it glanced off the officer's foot. so he sent her to the hospital for assaulting the officer. I can't find the video anymore, but it was pretty clear what happened, and that beating a girl into a bloody pulp for complying with directions.

No need to lie, no need to destroy evidence. Just make the rules so skewed in favor of the police that the criminals are always wrong, and anyone who isn't a cop is a criminal.

How would we know? Voter turnout for the presidential election was about 50%. For local elections, like prosecutors, it's lower. Aside from rare occasions, people who don't know a local candidate personally don't vote. Can you name any of your state legislators, prosecutor etc? WE HAVEN'T TRIED INFORMED VOTING. At least not in a while.

Anyway, what are you suggesting? If not voting them out... then what? Vigilante justice? Living in the woods away from society?

Well after being severely beaten and nearly killed by an angry cop and nearly getting several years in prison for made up charges I am moving to somewhere very remote, with very loose gun laws (so that I can protect myself against cops), and where coming into contact with the police at all is much less likely. For me, it's either that or leaving the country. America has some of the most violent, dangerous, corrupt, and angry cops in the world. And they are both well armed and well protected with body armor. How I long for a place where cops are just normal people doing a job. Somewhere where the majority of cops are not sociopaths with no feelings of remorse and no conscience. Was there ever a time when cops in America actually had a sense of right and wrong like they often have in the movies and on TV? American cops don't even respect the very laws they are supposed to enforce. At least when it applies to themselves.

Well after being severely beaten and nearly killed by an angry cop and nearly getting several years in prison for made up charges I am moving to somewhere very remote, with very loose gun laws (so that I can protect myself against cops), and where coming into contact with the police at all is much less likely. For me, it's either that or leaving the country. America has some of the most violent, dangerous, corrupt, and angry cops in the world. And they are both well armed and well protected with body armor. How I long for a place where cops are just normal people doing a job. Somewhere where the majority of cops are not sociopaths with no feelings of remorse and no conscience. Was there ever a time when cops in America actually had a sense of right and wrong like they often have in the movies and on TV? American cops don't even respect the very laws they are supposed to enforce. At least when it applies to themselves.

But in previous posts on slashdot you've already claimed that you got beat by cops for talking smack to them. While it sucks you got beat down, I think you should accept that you provoked it.

I've been arrested a ton of times, I have NEVER been beaten by a cop. Why? Because I know better then to talk shit when they have the upper hand. That gets you nowhere, except beaten or dead.

I never said it was unprovoked. It wasprovoked. I swore right back at the thing. Are you saying that makes what it did to me okay?

Right after the words left my mouth I knew I was in deep shit. In fact, at the time I thought it might actually be illegal. Only later did I learn that it is perfectly legal (although suicidal) to do so. I had no idea how truly suicidal it was and almost died because of it. I'll also have to live with memory impairment for the rest of my life because of those two words.

I had had very little contact with cops before (mainly lots of speeding tickets) and, although I already hated them and knew they were bullies/thugs I guess I assumed they had at least some respect for the laws they enforced. I watched too much Miami Vice and other cop shows I guess. I knew that stuff wasn't real, but maybe it subtly distorted my view of what real cops were like. Real cops don't have principles, don't care about right or wrong or abstract ideas like justice.

The essential mistake I made was in assuming that they were just regular guys who might think such roadblocks were bullshit. That they were just doing a job. I should never have tried to complain to it in the first place. Now I know that they are not truly human. Not like you and I. They are animals. Just mindless things who understand only violence. Trying to talk to one is like trying to talk to a hungry shark or crocodile. Not a lot of point to it and it's likely to end badly.

So due to all those faulty assumptions, when it called me an asshole I swore right back at the thing just like I would if anyone else swore at me. I simply would never have imagined in my wildest dreams that it would try to kill me just for saying two words to it. And then file false charges against me as if the strangling and beating I received were not sufficient punishment. I had never before met another human being that was quite that twisted and evil and violent. It was a tough lesson. I would never treat a cop like a human being ever again and avoiding contact with them at any cost is my priority.

I've been arrested a ton of times, I have NEVER been beaten by a cop. Why? Because I know better then to talk shit when they have the upper hand. That gets you nowhere, except beaten or dead.

Yeah. I realize that now, but I didn't know it at the time. I'm just an aging, overweight computer geek. I didn't have that kind of street wisdom. The way I thought about cops seems to be pretty common here on slashdot. It's a result of ignorance, movies, and a lack of real exposure to cops.

I see the same ignorant assumptions all the time here and after my experience I made a decision to try to at least give some prior warning to other geeks like me who may not realize how indistinguishable real life cops are from the most violent criminals. So I try to make at least one post in every police brutality thread I happen to notice so other isolated computer geeks can at least hear about the truth of what cops are really like. They may not believe the warning, but at least they have the chance to avoid what happened to me.

When I spent the night in jail after being arrested I noticed everyone else in the holding cells referred to the cop jailers as "sir". That gave me pause. When I thought about why they would do that and what they might know that I didn't know it definitely worried me. AFAIK they were all just drunk drivers (and yeah, they were really drunk). So I'm not sure how they came about this wisdom, but I respected it. Although I couldn't bring myself address them this way myself. I was terrified of them. All of them. But I just couldn't bring myself to call them "sir".

So, let me ask the flip question – one that I have been struggling with. Should public officials have privacy while on duty? Probably not. But what about citizens? How do we protect their rights?

If I were Rodney King I would want my arrest to be videotaped. Check on the power of the police – that fine.

A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.

And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted? Maybe I did something shameful and don’t want it to be public? Maybe something that is implied to be shameful – like a false arrest. Let’s say you were pulled over for a moving violation in a red light district? A little careful editing and it could look very bad.

So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook?

No - "pantsing" someone, i.e. making unwelcome physical contact, is called "assault," possibly even "sexual assault," and is illegal. Posting a picture, obtained illegally, in a public forum is also a crime, probably harassment (but more likely, defamation), and is prosecutable in civil court at the very least.

Videotaping cops doing their jobs in a public place is not assault, nor is it harassment. Also worth note - the cops do not get to press charges on your behalf (as the cop in this tale apparently took it upon herself to do), they merely serve the charges being filed and make arrests if necessary.

So the system can ignore evidence, and only use the recordings when they deem fit.

I think that all police and government owned cameras not installed with a warrant, should produce footage which is public domain, and made available as web cams, with recorded copies available via FIOA

Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.
That is ANYBODY.

I do not think that is accurate. If you are recording things for your personal use I suspect its true. If you are recording for public use I suspect its not true, hence the need to get "model release" signatures or blur the faces of regular people who are recognizable. Note "regular" people, celebrities and public officials do not get this sort of protection.

Also note that some places open to the public are not public spaces. I believe that on private property open to the public recording can be prohibited. I don't think you can get arrested but the property owner can surely instruct you to leave. If you fail to do so then you are trespassing and subject to arrest.

There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.

Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.

There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere.

This is dead wrong, and doesn't get more true by being repeated. See, there is this legal phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" that applies even in public spaces.

If you walk on the street, you have every right to expect someone not pushing a camera under your skirt or taking infra-red camera pictures to check out your body.And if you hike in a national forest, you have every right to not being charged with public exposure if you take a whizz behind a tree.

If they are out in public, no. They have the same right to privacy that you and I do out in public: none.

>But what about citizens?

You have no right to privacy out in public. This is established law. Doing something out on a public thoroughfare, sidewalk, public building, etc, means that you expect people to see you do/say things. It's the reason why the police don't need a warrant to arrest you for doing something illegal in front of them.

>A good phone should be able to eavesdrop on the private interview between suspect and cop.

If it's in an office, it's private, but not out in public. It's a publich conversation.

Tough shit.

>And, what if I did not want the tape to be posted?

Tough shit.

>Maybe I did something shameful and donâ(TM)t want it to be public?

Tough shit.

>Maybe something that is implied to be shameful â" like a false arrest.

Tough shit.

You can redress this by various means up to and including suing for false arrest and making public statements about the bad practices of the PD that led to the false arrest.

>Letâ(TM)s say you were pulled over for a moving violation in a red light district? A little careful editing and it could look very bad.

Tough shit. The only right you have to complain is whether the editing was defamatory.

SCOTUS doesn't need to make a ruling upholding a constitutional right, as the constitution already does.

The Justice Department affirmed this strongly when they sent a letter to the Baltimore PD [wired.com] which asserted that it is a first amendment right to record, and a violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to access and/or destroy such recordings without due process and/or a warrant.

This made national headlines and so it's assured every police department in the U.S. is well aware of this.

Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

Fixed that for ya.

Well, at least he can no longer be charged without any evidence, right? Or are they trying to charge him with HIPAA violation without a video that he allegedly recorded?

Seriously, when did it become acceptable that evidence can just disappear in police custody? I know it is not the same as 11 (or was it 17?) police cruiser cameras malfunctioning simultaneously but still.

Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.

This is obviously a case of the police not knowing the law (shocker, I know). I think the officers meant well enough -- I mean, how would you like the worst day of your life being thrown up on YouTube by some paparazzi? But they handled this very badly. I would be willing to bet that if the police had simply approached the guy and said, "Look man, this guy's had a rough night and he doesn't need video of it showing up on the internet. Unless you think there's a crime happening here, could you please delete the footage? I think this guy deserves a little respect," that the guy would have complied. Unless of course he's a total douche, in which case that's what disorderly conduct is for, and the police, while still wrong, could have simply taken him to jail, had his possessions surrendered, and then deleted the footage and released him after booking.

There are good ways, bad ways, and terrible ways, to handle these sorts of issues. I think it's obvious here which one they picked.

I disagree and think that police should be allowed to be filmed in public places at all times, to help keep them honest.

At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.

At the same time, if I were being loaded into an ambulance by police, in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me. That's not something you want out spread around the internet.

Freedom isn't always convenient. Hell some people enjoy very nice lives under a dictatorship (particularly the dictator themselves). Doesn't mean its right. What you're effectively saying is that people should have their speech restricted even if its the truth so long as someone else finds that speech embarrassing or offensive.

No, he's saying that we should expect common decency from our fellow man, but, since people have decided to think in Black and White and act like "buttinski's", never acknowledging that reasonable limits can be self enforced by individuals, he's willing to accept that maybe we don't deserve the freedom we say is so important.

Remember its not just the government who can stomp all over the individual...other individuals can do it to. Unfortunately we're so quick to point out absolute wrong of the government, that we ignore our responsibility not to be an ass in a functioning society. Just because the police are wrong doesn't make the guy with the camera right.

Being an asshole is legal, and should be. Freedom when it gets right down to it is all about doing things other people don't like. If every action you perform is in complete compliance with society's accepted definition of normal then you don't need any laws to protect your rights, because nobody is going to complain about your actions in the first place.

The protections are there to specifically protect against the UNPOPULAR actions that people get chided for. Freedom to do what you want so long as it conforms to exactly what society approves of isn't freedom at all.

That's presuming "a violent mental breakdown" matches the actual events. If I was beaten up by the police and loaded into an ambulance with the tag "this guy is psychotic", I'd sure as hell want someone to have recorded what really happened.

Allowing the police to avoid being observed and recorded has consequences that affect society as a whole. That's really bad.

Allowing the police to enforce the privacy of someone they're arresting only really affects those few who are arrested. Arrest being an offical duty by a public official, should not really carry any sort of reasonable expectation of privacy. And whatever is captured on video actually happened, so there are no legitimate concerns of libel or slander. On the whole, this is not that bad.

I think it's clear where the balance lies. I would rather have a 100% chance of any future interaction between myself and law enforcement to be recorded and distributed on the internet than risk the slightest chance of police getting away with brutality. Allowing video might reveal some crazy shit I actually did. Prohibiting video might conceal some crazy shit the police actually did.

in the midst of a violent mental health breakdown, I would really appreciate it if the police stopped people from filming me.

The article says he saw the police handling a bloodied man. While shooting the video he wouldn't know the circumstances resulting in the injury. Even now we don't have information about whether the person in the video was bloodied by the police. If he was, that's the exact time video should be rolling. A complete video record is the best defense an honest officer has. People in positions of special trust should be held to a higher standard, and we can start with the 'if you have nothing to hide' trope.

There needs to be a new law that makes it clearly illegal for the police to interfere with someone recording them in a public place. Given the fact that police can be menacing it should be illegal for them to even ask you to stop or actively try to block you. In the same way they can't continue to ask you questions once you invoke your right to have an attorney present and have invoked your right to silence. The penalty for the law should be multi fold. Potential felony for the cop but also a minimum fine partially payable to the victim. This would serve to get more people videoing the police and the insult of the police having to write out checks to people they tried to intimidate would be golden.

The next tier of offense would be if the police then erase the video. With that there should be a minimum mandatory sentence along with a huge fine, again with much going to the victim.

Lastly there should be no exceptions tossed in as the slightest wedge given to the police would be abused to hell; So no being able to say it is evidence. If someone videos the police then the video should be as sacrosanct as client attorney privilege; if they want to youtube it then fine if they want to keep it safe then their choice.

It all boils down to information is power. Previously it was the whole your word against a policeman's which basically made their side of a story the only side of a story. But now the public has massive power not only through the video but through the near frictionless ability to distribute that video. 20 years ago if you were to say video the police pulling over a clearly drunk powerful politician even the local media might not touch that video assuming the police let you walk 5 feet away with it. Now you put it on youtube and the police suddenly do their job and charge the politician and while the prosecutor might not go for the throat will at least go through the minimum motions.

But all arguments that this somehow interferes with the police being able to do their jobs is false. The police have the clear ability to abuse or not abuse their power. But someone videoing the police does not change what happens they are not able to create abuse they can potentially try to show something out of context or add a colourful commentary but most people aren't stupid and will see through that in a flash. My guess is that any policeman that gets frustrated with being recorded is a policeman who doesn't want to be forced to obey the rules or knows they just broke the rules. They are lashing out because of frustration not because they think they are in the right.

This all reminds me of a local Indian restaurant lashing out after being closed for a zillion health violations; they argued that the health inspectors didn't understand Indian cooking nor did they think the health inspectors had any right to be in their kitchens. They argued that their insurance didn't cover health inspectors only employees, that the health inspectors were exaggerating, and that the inspection reports should not be public as the public wouldn't understand them. These all sound like the arguments that police make against recording them.

While the headline of TFS asserts that he was charged with a HIPAA violation, the TFA makes clear that he was, in fact, charged with "obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct"; the notes on the citation describing the event mention a HIPAA data privacy violation, but that's the description of the officer's version of the facts surrounding the charge, not the charged offense.

Start by not using their language. They didn't "confiscate" his camera - they robbed him and stole his camera. See how that's suddenly a different story? But that's the *correct* version of it. "Confiscation" implies that they took it temporarily under some statutory authority. What they actually did was "strong-arm robbery", with an aggravating circumstance of "under color of law" or "with a gun", or both. That's a felony any way you slice it.

I read a lot of these stories, and the press and everybody discussing it uses the weasel language created by law enforcement to cover up LEO crimes. So, a kidnapping becomes a "false arrest" (no such thing, as an "arrest" is defined as "taking someone into custody *under legal authority*"), robbery becomes "confiscation", perjury becomes "made a mistake while filing a sworn affidavit", assault becomes "excessive force", etc. This is a problem. Start calling the crimes by their proper names and it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to justify it or write it off.

The victim needs to go straight to the DA and demand prosecution. It wouldn't happen unless the prosecutor is honest (and there actually are a few), but with enough noise he'll get his camera back and hopefully someone will get at least a stern talking-to.

It will never stop until police "officers" are personally criminally responsible for their criminal actions, and are actively prosecuted for them.Since that will never happen, the abuse will never stop.

Not all cops are bullies, liars, or thugs. I have personally known some very nice ones. Unfortunately all jobs done by people get good and bad ones alike. Yes there are some bad cops. There are also alot of officers who just have to put up with bad people all day. I know its a pipe dream but I wish people would stop making horrible generalizations just because they see one bad egg. You might do well to remember that police officers go out every day all over world with the prospect of not making it home that

It's my impression that Police culture, much like Military culture, heavily frowns on ratting out another member of your group, even if you know they did something wrong... especially if they do something wrong.

Perhaps having a collective group whose mission is to take out bad guys, and seeing bad guys constantly, creates a very stong "us" and "them" driven ethos.

Not only that, but taxi drivers don't hide behind a code that prevents the "good" ones from outing the "bad" ones.

There are no good cops. There are only those who comply with the law, and those who don't. That the "good" ones cover for each other or refuses to make a stand against the "bad" ones makes all of them bad.

Part of the problem I think is a lack of accountability, too many cases come down to the cop's word vs. the defendant's and the cop's is taken without question landing innocent people into the system. I think the issue can easily be solved as somebody on here said in a discussion a while ago by installing cameras in ALL police cars. An extreme step past that would be to track the officer themselves, but there's gotta be a better way than that. The reason for all this: they hold a position of power that they've proven time and time and again they're capable of abusing, those in power should be held accountable, even if it's over the wrongful arrest of a single individual. Imagine being "that" guy, not a good day indeed.

All cops are either bullies, liars, or thugs. They are required to be bullies by the existance of sumptuary laws like those against cannabis. If they enforce those laws they are bullies. If they refuse to enforce those laws, they are liars. QED.

So when can we expect the officer in question to be arrested by his fine, upstanding fellow officers for false arrest? This arrest is clearly illegal, and yet no one is going to arrest him for it. Every officer that fails to make that arrest is a thug, plain and simple.

Cops are thugs. That's not a blind belief, it's a hypothesis that's well supported by the available evidence.

Right.. and how many of the rest of them look the other way, actively cover up, or otherwise tighten up on the thin blue line? Its almost like theres a phrase in the law for that: accessory after the fact.

Where is the outrage from law enforcement over such flagrant abuse of authority? Where are the criminal charges for the so-called police officers at fault?

When in public, and not on private property, a person should darn well be able to record absolutely anything and everything that they can see or hear for themselves. On private property, you respect the wishes of the owner of the property or you are trespassing.